I just noticed, isn’t that article from The Nation they cite the one that had to be edited because the “navy SEAL” they quoted extensively turned out to be a complete fraud? And, besides the Bloomberg-funded crap from TheTrace, we are supposed to accept “The Campaign To Keep Guns Off Campus” as a reliable source? Not to mention Mother Jones (Campus rape hoax), The New Republic (home of the “Baghdad Fabulist”), etc. And then they even cite themselves…geeze…

‘Would it be useful to rebut these arguments point by point? We could play “Name that logical fallacy.”’

Yes, that would be fun, but to start with they’re all straw man arguments. First, make the “opposing” argument in a weak way, you can handily refute. Then refute it. Thus, the argument, and by association (<- another fallacy) the arguer are defeated.

It doesn't count as a win, when the other guys can't make their own moves. This is why the other guy playing chess gets to move his own pieces.

This Gun Free UT thing is great. The people of Texas instantly see’s who is against gun rights. They’ll know exactly which faculty members, which staff, and which professors are freedom hating marxists. It’s great.

1. Campus Carry won’t have much impact because CHL holders must be over 21 and few such students live on campus. WRONG:

Over 5000 people within a 5 mile radius of UT-Austin’s campus have CHLs
Reciprocal laws will allow thousands more people with licenses from other states to enter our place of work and learning and our students’ on-campus homes.

First you guys complain about impulsive drunken emotional freshmen, now you move the goal post, drop the ridiculous freshmen argument and talk about all the thousands of people surrounding the campus that might enter it. Since the law is intended to allow concealed carriers on campus i’ll drop this argument because in my opinion, as you’ll soon see, it doesn’t matter how many concealed carriers step on your campus, you are already walking amongst them around town, in convenient stores, gas stations, department stores, all around you they are there, and you are still alive.

That’s a good point. If they were semi-rational beings, you could ask them, “hey, with 5000 of those unstable, racist, ready-to-snap vigilante gun-toters in the immediate neighborhood, why aren’t you dead yet?”

2. Campus Carry will allow people to protect themselves from criminals. WRONG:

Guns prove to be no more effective at protecting people from crime than other weapons and less effective than running and hiding or calling the police.

So I linked over to your data and wanted to read the data for “A comparison of weighted and unweighted analyses in the national Crime Victimization Survey” however was not willing to pay 40 bucks to read it and also I wasn’t going to take David Hemenway’s (Notoriously anti-gun) word for it. I did notice the study didn’t and couldn’t take into account the following DGUs:

1) DGU’s for residents in rural places against animals and protecting livestock.
2) The DGU that never happened – because the intended perpetrator knew that the would be victim was armed – or likely armed. Obviously if these people bothered to take a survey they wouldn’t say they planned on killing, robbing, raping, or stealing someones stuff.

Furthermore, “The trace” is owned by Bloomberg and David Hemenway is paid by Bloomberg to “research” gun related activities. Bloomberg is notoriously anti-gun. Since he donated 1.1 billion to john Hopkins, and millions elsewhere, what kind of research do you think they are going to produce?

My last point. Given the statement above: “Guns prove to be no more effective at protecting people from crime than other weapons…

Then why do we need any gun control at all? First you guys say guns are very effective and that a gun is inherently much more dangerous than a knife or a bat, etc, etc, and that it is a lot harder to kill someone with a bat than with a knife etc. You guys said that with a gun you press a button and someone dies. Which is it?

Given the statement above: “…and less effective than running and hiding or calling the police.”

I would like to note that if you are a liberal fear mongering coward who is carrying concealed, you can still run away and call the police. You don’t have to put yourself in harm, pull your CCW, and protect other people if you don’t want to. You can run away and call the police and wait the 15 minutes before they arrive.

Mass shootings on & around college campuses are horrific and scary, but they are rare.
College campuses are among the safest places in Texas and the US.
Mass shooters do not choose their targets because they are in Gun Free zones

Mass shootings on & around college campuses are horrific and scary, but they are rare.
Obama says they aren’t rare. The media says they aren’t rare. Marxist europeans say they aren’t rare. Piers Morgan himself says they aren’t rare. If they are rare – why do we need any gun control for mass shootings?? We can focus on cancer, drownings, or just plain “falls” since lawn darts are now banned (three people died). First you guys scream about the horror of the frequent occurrence of mass shooting and now they are rare? Which is it?

College campuses are among the safest places in Texas and the US.
So are the areas surrounding the campuses. Those areas allow concealed carry. There isn’t some magical line between the campus and the surrounding areas around the campus that would suddenly increase crime (with guns). If criminals off campus are looking to hurt someone (with guns) they aren’t going to care that the campus has a sign that says “no guns allowed.”

Mass shooters do not choose their targets because they are in Gun Free zones
Gun free zones do not attract criminals – I agree. Mass shooters look for places where there are very high densities of unarmed people – those area’s generally tend to be “gun free zones” which is unfortunate. Where are the mass shootings that took place at a police station? Where are the mass shootings that took place a gun show? Where are the mass shootings that took place at the military firing line? Are you seeing a pattern here? But like you say – this is extremely rare – so rare in fact – that school shootings are on par with lightening strikes.

The FBI found only 1 of 160 active shooter incidents between 2000-2014 was stopped by a CHL holder, and he was a Marine; 21 incidents were stopped by UNARMED civilians
In several cases when CHL holders have attempted to intervene, they have been killed, injured, or nearly shot the wrong person.
Security experts with extensive training don’t trust CHL holders to be effective in a crisis
Simulations prove the security experts’ point.

The FBI found only 1 of 160 active shooter incidents between 2000-2014 was stopped by a CHL holder, and he was a Marine; 21 incidents were stopped by UNARMED civilians
You obviously haven’t read TTAG’s “Defensive gun use of the day.” They show one … every day.

In several cases when CHL holders have attempted to intervene, they have been killed, injured, or nearly shot the wrong person.
The same can be said of cops. Why argue for one but not the other. Ever hear of the good samaritan law? People tend to see the moral high road as coming to the aid of others in distress. We know this isn’t for you guys, but you don’t have to help, you don’t have a get licensed for a CCW – you can run away, call the cops, and wait 15 minutes (long after all the shooting is over) for them to arrive and clean up.

Security experts with extensive training don’t trust CHL holders to be effective in a crisis
Please provide a link to the source for the concealed carrier accidentally shooting the owner of the car during the carjacking, then picking up his casings and running away. Are you sure he wasn’t in on the carjacking? More information please. Please forgive me for being skeptical for a website titled “The Nation – instigating Progress daily.”

>running and hiding or calling the police
HAHAHA! Oh, wow…
>College campuses are among the safest places in Texas and the US.
WHERE DA F—IN HOOD AT? O-oh, it’s right next to campus? Just like every (sub)urban college campus in the United States? And all those campuses are full of weak, unarmed, ectomorphs with virgin buttholes, and lots of daddy’s money in their pockets, just prime for the robbing, raping, and killing? Gee, this seems like a great opportunity for low-rent gangbangers!

“Mass shootings on & around college campuses are horrific and scary, but they are rare.
College campuses are among the safest places in Texas and the US.”

Strange this. Don’t the gun grabbers rant about how many mass shootings take place on & around schools? As example the 325 claimed here
Mass Shootings in 2015 – Mass Shooting Tracker – http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
It seem the gun grabbers are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

What a bunch of leftist tomfoolery. Glad I got my degree in the 70s. Carried a little Sterling .22 on the sly for 4 years, way before CC or OC were in force. Never had to use it, but the streets of north Philadelphia are not the most forgiving…

I call shenanigans on your claim good sir! I have it on good authority that it is absolutely impossible for someone to carry a gun on campus when it is illegal to do so…. Furthermore, if it was legal, (according to the above article) you would have been obligated to rape a close female acquaintance of yours. So thank God it wasn’t legal.

“our university way of life”. Your university way of life is to hide from your own words and to LIE to achieve you unicorn fantasy world were talking to evil makes it turn good. I hope your fantasy world is completely destroyed. Then possibly our kids could get a REAL education instead of the pablum, claptrap you call education.

A study of FBI and Clery Act data shows that sexual violence has increased on campuses where Concealed Carry has been implemented
Most campus sexual assault occurs between acquaintances, where the victim would be unlikely to use a gun
Allowing guns on campus will arm the perpetrators of sexual violence.

The “Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus?” That’s a reliable and believable source for us. So the “Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus” did a study based on “FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and Clery Act data?” Where is the study? Why don’t they provide a link to their study? I’m interested in seeing it. The “Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus” even stated in their article – “While results certainly do not prove that concealed carry causes more crime; it certainly disproves the possible presence of an individual who is carrying a concealed handgun equals less crime.” If that is so – what is the problem??? Why not allow concealed carriers on campus?

Furthermore – the “Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus” says “Campus rape, however, remains a problem on college campuses; a problem that concealed handguns cannot fix as illustrated by the statistical evidence in Utah and Colorado. The goals of our state legislators should not be arming more individuals, but educating students at a younger age about the dangers of drugs and alcohol related to sexual assault and the need to teach individuals to respect each other.”

Again, I would like to see the “study” which reached such conclusions, too bad the CKGOC didn’t want to provide it. I do agree with the last point – it is important to instill morals and values in children regarding drugs, alcohol, and sexual assault. That said, I wouldn’t hold my breath that liberal responsibility-free adults will attempt to do such and would prefer that people make their safety their own responsibility as the state, cops, and parents of rapists can’t ensure such. I will say this, what you study doesn’t cover is the rape that didn’t happen because when the perp saw the would be victim armed they ran away and a police report was never filed.

As you can see in the above article, a rapist was armed in a gun free zone. I don’t see how allowing licensed concealed carriers into campuses is going to arm perpetrators when perpetrators already ignore “no guns allowed” signs and laws at campuses. I will tell you what your no guns allowed sign does do – it disarms the law abiding and those with no intention of harm to become victims of rapists and murderers.

The NRA has blocked the study of crime rates by CHL holders and other gun-violence related claims.
Information on arrests of concealed carriers is shielded by law in most states.
Conviction rates are unreliable, because CHL holders tend to escape prosecution.

Well, all CHL holders undergo a background check and some degree of training. From this alone you know they have no violent history right? Not that it matters because the bad guys bought their stolen guns out of the back of a sedan or down some alley, didn’t go through a background check, and have no license.

The NRA has blocked the study of crime rates by CHL holders and other gun-violence related claims.
You means this BS??: https://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot-shots/singlepage
Back in the late 90’s the funding for the CDC was cut off because Congressmen (representing millions of people) and the millions of people within the NRA didn’t want tax payer’s money funding “bogus” science simply intended to reduce firearm ownership. We law abiding gun owners already pay your tax and follow your ridiculous gun control laws – we don’t want to pay for your propaganda to further increase the majority on your side so you can restrict us further. University Sociologists called the literature coming out the CDC “advocacy based on political beliefs rather than scientific fact.” When you just demonize guns, call it a public health crisis, sensationalize every negative occurrence, and present assumptions disguised as fact – sure, people are going to seek a funding cut. No surprise here.

Information on arrests of concealed carriers is shielded by law in most states.
As well they should be. It’s called privacy. You guys complain regarding rights to privacy, and then on the flip side complain because you aren’t getting private information of individuals. An arrest is an arrest – not a conviction. Anyone can be arrested for any reason at all. The cops can arrest and hold you for 24 hours for whatever reason they want. So I agree that this law should be in place and in addition, the privacy of CHL’s identities, otherwise someone will make an interactive map of CHL holders for the purpose of political gun shaming. The source you guys provided states “Wisconsin’s concealed carry law shields the release of most data regarding license applicants and holders.” Wisconsin’s law states: “Notwithstanding s. 19.35, the department of justice, the department of transportation, or any employee of either department may not make information obtained under this section available to the public except in the context of a prosecution for an offense in which the person’s status as a licensee or holder of a certification card is relevant or through a report created under sub. (19)” I totally agree with that – it’s call privacy.

Conviction rates are unreliable, because CHL holders tend to escape prosecution.
This is because reasonable men and women apply a similar standard to firearms as they do other accidents. If a person accidentally shoots a child – sure they are definitely responsible. However it was an accident. If a person is driving a car negligently and their child in the backseat dies as a result of their negligence and subsequent car crash are they ever prosecuted for it? Are swimming pool owners criminally charged when their child falls in the pool and drowns? Falls down a set of stairs? Drinks some Drano they found? I would say yes for prosecution of this type of negligence, but then I have to ask: what of non-firearms related negligence in the home that also leads to homicide? Only when you guys understand that the safety rules you are advocating should be equally aimed at your lawnmowers and laundry detergent will you “get it”. It should be based on the degree of culpability, situation, and apply to all methods – not just at gun owners or their guns.

Some people feel safer with guns. That feeling of safety is based on false information.
Many people in our community –students, staff, and faculty — feel threatened by Campus Carry.
devaluing of African American life in the US makes many people in UT Austin’s Black community feel especially threatened.
The majority of the UT Austin community opposes Campus Carry.
This law is being imposed on us by legislators using faulty arguments in order to disrupt our community, our students’ homes, our work places and our university way of life.

Some people feel safer with guns. That feeling of safety is based on false information.
Again, you guys obviously haven’t read TTAG’s defensive gun use of the day. They have one … everyday. Carrying a gun doesn’t necessarily make you safe – what it does do is provide you leverage for self defense. You might want to be defenseless, run away (or try to), call the cops, and wait the 15 minutes for the cops to arrive – but i’ll pass and I’m thankful I have options that many others don’t have (e.g. Paris, France subjects).

Many people in our community –students, staff, and faculty — feel threatened by Campus Carry.
No doubt about that. Too bad you can’t displace feelings for logic in your analysis. CHL holders undergo a background check, are typically better restrained than police officers (they have more to lose), and cops support concealed carry:

devaluing of African American life in the US makes many people in UT Austin’s Black community feel especially threatened.
I completely disagree with this statement and the Warfield center. Blacks have every right to keep and bear arms just as other races. In fact, gun control roots stemmed from keeping guns out of the hands of black people after the civil war.

Warfield center: “It is not uncommon for Warfield Center faculty to be the object of documented threats and harassment in our offices and lecture halls.”

More the reason for blacks to participate in their right to keep and bear arms.

Warfield center: “When it comes to Black lives and the matter of guns on campus, the State and the University have a responsibility to protect and defend those who are most vulnerable. Therefore, we demand that firearms be banned in all spaces occupied by Black people on our campus.”

The state and the University can’t and won’t protect you. A “gun-free sign” will not stop a person intent to do harm. Making the campus gun free doesn’t really ensure the campus is gun free – it’s just security theater.

The majority of the UT Austin community opposes Campus Carry.
Well it isn’t just residents of Austin attending your school so don’t play the Majoritarianism card.

Allowing CHL people to enter the campus buildings doesn’t make your life any more dangerous. If they were intent on harming you (with a gun) they probably wouldn’t have cared that it was against the law to enter a building with a concealed handgun. Again, concealed carry have been allowed on UT campus for the last 20 years.

This law is being imposed on us by legislators using faulty arguments in order to disrupt our community, our students’ homes, our work places and our university way of life.

?? The law is being imposed on you be legislators? That’s how we feel when you guys pass some pro gun-ban laws. Regarding 1824 with Jefferson in attendance – I imagine there weren’t too many suicider’s committing school shootings at that time either. If the case – Madison and Jefferson may have suggested armed citizenry given their prior statements. Furthermore, Jefferson was 83 at the time. When I’m 83, I hope i’ll be sufficiently cogent to realize where I am and what people are talking about.

Finally, no one is disrupting anything. Conceal carriers must keep their firearms concealed, so you guys won’t even know they are carrying. I really don’t understand how you guys think that a law that says no guns on campus will prevent anyone from bringing a gun on campus but a law that says concealed means concealed somehow isn’t going to work and those people will be disruptive. Only believe in the laws you like yes?